Iowa and New Hampshire (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Question: is there anyone here, conservative or liberal, libertarian or progressive, independent or whatever you prefer to call yourself, who disagrees with the fact that these two small states have way too much influence on our political system?

 

[RCon]

Poll?

Way too much influence. The fact that Iowa is first is likely a significant reason that the US is fat and unhealthy (due to the farm bill and corn subsidies).

 

[fantasycurse42]

Honestly bromigo, I have no idea... What I can say for certainty is that Chicken Tikka Masala I had for dinner has left me loaded with gas today. Luckily my boss and other coworker who sit close by are both out of the office today, bc the cloud of gas surrounding my desk could kill a small village.

 

[timschochet]

Honestly bromigo, I have no idea... What I can say for certainty is that Chicken Tikka Masala I had for dinner has left me loaded with gas today. Luckily my boss and other coworker who sit close by are both out of the office today, bc the cloud of gas surrounding my desk could kill a small village.

I love Tikka Masala. Had to cut it out of my diet because too many Weight Watcher points-love it.

 

[NCCommish]

Not at all representative of the US electorate and way too influential.

I would add that I think they hurt the GOP the most because you have to run so far to the right its nearly impossible to come back to the middle later.

 

[timschochet]

Not at all representative of the US electorate and way too influential.

I would add that I think they hurt the GOP the most because you have to run so far to the right its nearly impossible to come back to the middle later.

The last part is more true of Iowa and South Carolina than New Hampshire I believe.

 

[NutterButter]

The whole system of different states voting on different days seems silly to me. It does make for a fun drawn out election.

 

[the moops]

Which is odd in a way considering in the general election Iowa has voted Democrat 4 out of the last 5 years

 

[zeamax]

They both have strong political parties and the states are small enough the candidates have to do retail politics.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pfft, I like it, it's a nice setup.

 

[Chadstroma]

Question: is there anyone here, conservative or liberal, libertarian or progressive, independent or whatever you prefer to call yourself, who disagrees with the fact that these two small states have way too much influence on our political system?

You already know the answer to that- we went back and forth more than a little bit on this exact subject.

 

[Chadstroma]

Not at all representative of the US electorate and way too influential.

I would add that I think they hurt the GOP the most because you have to run so far to the right its nearly impossible to come back to the middle later.

You seem to forget it is not just Iowa but New Hampshire is in there too. I would love to see your argument that running in New Hampshire means you have to run to the right more so than any other blue state.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I mostly agree with you Tim, but there will be an election sometime in our lifetime when it is competitive to the end, and some big state like California that votes late ends up being the deciding factor. It's possible this could be the election cycle where it happens -- I don't expect we'll have a presumptive nominee, especially on the Republican side, until well into the primary season.

 

[TheIronSheik]

What are 2 states that have never been in my kitchen?

 

[captain_amazing]

We have candidates around Manchester constantly. I've walked past a few on Elm in years past, just casually. It's pretty cool.

 

[captain_amazing]

Plus, what else do we have going for us? The man fell of the mountain years ago, so we don't even have that anymore.

 

[cstu]

Smaller states are better because they allow the candidates to meet/speak to a larger percentage of the population.

 

[NREC34]

Plus, what else do we have going for us? The man fell of the mountain years ago, so we don't even have that anymore.

You're close to Vermont and Maine and your taxes are good. I've been thinking about NH for retirement.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Smaller states are better because they allow the candidates to meet/speak to a larger percentage of the population.

Right I agree, make them go politick.

 

[Insomniac]

Not at all representative of the US electorate and way too influential.

I would add that I think they hurt the GOP the most because you have to run so far to the right its nearly impossible to come back to the middle later.

You seem to forget it is not just Iowa but New Hampshire is in there too. I would love to see your argument that running in New Hampshire means you have to run to the right more so than any other blue state.

Competitive GOP NH primaries

1964 Lodge beat Goldwater

1968 Nixon over George Romney

1976 Ford over Reagan

1980 Reagan over George H.W. Bush

1988 Bush over Dole

1992 Bush over Buchanan

1996 Buchanan over Dole

2000 McCain over George W. Bush

2008 McCain over Romney

2012 Romney over Ron Paul

There doesn't seem to be any kind of clear edge for the candidate that's more right wing.

Democratic primaries

1972 Muskie over McGovern

1976 Carter over Udall

1980 Carter over Kennedy

1988 Dukakis over Gephardt

1992 Tsongas over Bill Clinton

2000 Gore over Bradley

2004 Kerry over Dean

2008 Hillary Clinton over Obama

Here there seems to be a slight edge to the less liberal candidate.

Other than in 1968 and 1952 nobody has finished worse than 2nd in the NH primary and gone on to win the nomination but in most cases the NH results reflected the national polls rather than had an impact on them.

I 'd prefer a 1 day national primary for the nomination. I live in NH so it's good to have more influence than most but I'm already starting to see political commercials as much as I see Draft Kings commercials. Lots of pollsters call too.

 

[ROCKET]

Plus, what else do we have going for us? The man fell of the mountain years ago, so we don't even have that anymore.

You're close to Vermont and Maine and your taxes are good. I've been thinking about NH for retirement.

Hope you like cold weather.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not necessarily arguing against small states getting their due, but why always the same two? There are other small states too.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm not necessarily arguing against small states getting their due, but why always the same two? There are other small states too.

Right, and why does a whole state necessarily have to vote at the same time? What if the first primary was "New York City"? Seems like it would be pretty manageable for the candidates to interact with the voters.

 

[Fennis]

I'm not necessarily arguing against small states getting their due, but why always the same two? There are other small states too.

Right, and why does a whole state necessarily have to vote at the same time? What if the first primary was "New York City"? Seems like it would be pretty manageable for the candidates to interact with the voters.

Sheik's kitchen could be a primary

 

[Chadstroma]

Smaller states are better because they allow the candidates to meet/speak to a larger percentage of the population.

Exactly. California, Florida, Texas, etc as early primary states? Most money wins. Why? Because you are buying air time. In Iowa and New Hampshire- you have to spend time there meeting people and talking to people. More % of people actually interact with the candidates. There is value in that that you simply will never get out of a big state.

Also, I believe that a higher degree of the population takes pride in helping vet candidates and are more involved than your 'normal' voter. You won't get that out of a big state.

You want more diversity? Add a western state like Nevada, Utah or New Mexico- small populations with concentrated population centers. But don't mess with Iowa and New Hampshire. It is just plain dumb to do so if you have EVER whined about money in politics.

 

[Fennis]

Smaller states are better because they allow the candidates to meet/speak to a larger percentage of the population.

Exactly. California, Florida, Texas, etc as early primary states? Most money wins. Why? Because you are buying air time. In Iowa and New Hampshire- you have to spend time there meeting people and talking to people. More % of people actually interact with the candidates. There is value in that that you simply will never get out of a big state.

Also, I believe that a higher degree of the population takes pride in helping vet candidates and are more involved than your 'normal' voter. You won't get that out of a big state.

You want more diversity? Add a western state like Nevada, Utah or New Mexico- small populations with concentrated population centers. But don't mess with Iowa and New Hampshire. It is just plain dumb to do so if you have EVER whined about money in politics.

Nevada and South Carolina already are the early primary states along with Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

[Chadstroma]

Smaller states are better because they allow the candidates to meet/speak to a larger percentage of the population.

Exactly. California, Florida, Texas, etc as early primary states? Most money wins. Why? Because you are buying air time. In Iowa and New Hampshire- you have to spend time there meeting people and talking to people. More % of people actually interact with the candidates. There is value in that that you simply will never get out of a big state.

Also, I believe that a higher degree of the population takes pride in helping vet candidates and are more involved than your 'normal' voter. You won't get that out of a big state.

You want more diversity? Add a western state like Nevada, Utah or New Mexico- small populations with concentrated population centers. But don't mess with Iowa and New Hampshire. It is just plain dumb to do so if you have EVER whined about money in politics.

Nevada and South Carolina already are the early primary states along with Iowa and New Hampshire.

Kinda of like second round early.

I really don't think there is a problem with how it is now.

 

[RCon]

I really don't think there is a problem with how it is now.

You really don't understand how Iowa being first is a massive contributing cause to the dumpster fire that is the farm bill?

 

[NCCommish]

Smaller states are better because they allow the candidates to meet/speak to a larger percentage of the population.

Exactly. California, Florida, Texas, etc as early primary states? Most money wins. Why? Because you are buying air time. In Iowa and New Hampshire- you have to spend time there meeting people and talking to people. More % of people actually interact with the candidates. There is value in that that you simply will never get out of a big state.Also, I believe that a higher degree of the population takes pride in helping vet candidates and are more involved than your 'normal' voter. You won't get that out of a big state.

You want more diversity? Add a western state like Nevada, Utah or New Mexico- small populations with concentrated population centers. But don't mess with Iowa and New Hampshire. It is just plain dumb to do so if you have EVER whined about money in politics.

Hillary has spent millions in Iowa and NH on TV ads. The days of retail politics are long past.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I really don't think there is a problem with how it is now.

You really don't understand how Iowa being first is a massive contributing cause to the dumpster fire that is the farm bill?

It's a cause, but Iowa doesn't pick winners all that often. I mean, I don't remember the Gephardt, Harkin, and Huckabee administrations.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm not necessarily arguing against small states getting their due, but why always the same two? There are other small states too.

What does it matter? Wheat from the chaff.

 

[timschochet]

Smaller states are better because they allow the candidates to meet/speak to a larger percentage of the population.

Exactly. California, Florida, Texas, etc as early primary states? Most money wins. Why? Because you are buying air time. In Iowa and New Hampshire- you have to spend time there meeting people and talking to people. More % of people actually interact with the candidates. There is value in that that you simply will never get out of a big state.Also, I believe that a higher degree of the population takes pride in helping vet candidates and are more involved than your 'normal' voter. You won't get that out of a big state.

You want more diversity? Add a western state like Nevada, Utah or New Mexico- small populations with concentrated population centers. But don't mess with Iowa and New Hampshire. It is just plain dumb to do so if you have EVER whined about money in politics.

Hillary has spent millions in Iowa and NH on TV ads. The days of retail politics are long past.

Agree with this. It's a myth. The real winners are the corporations in Iowa and the corporations in New Hampshire. I'm sorry, but for the life of me I don't see why the corporations in those two states should have greater clout in American politics than the corporations in Ohio, or California, or Alabama, or Rhode Island.

Again, this is NOT a big state vs. little state issue. It's an issue of Iowa and New Hampshire vs. 48 other states who deserve equal attention but do not receive it.

 

[lombardi]

I really like the system. Iowa and New Hampshire take care of the due diligence for the rest of us.

If we started in larger states we would never hear from dark horse candidates, whoever had the name recognition and money would roll through those states and the elections would be a foregone conclusion.

Iowa and New Hampshire force candidates to talk about issues, meet people. do town halls, prepare for debates... I think it's great. They take their roles very seriously, especially in Iowa, and I think they do us a service.

And it's not like they actually have a ton of influence in the overall election, they don't have the elecorates to make a huge difference. Most of the time the winners in the states don't win the primaries. However, the process benefits all of us.

The people who hate Iowa and New Hampshire most are the establishment candidates, big money candidates, and people who feel they deserve a quick an early annonting (like Jeb and HIllary)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I really like the system. Iowa and New Hampshire take care of the due diligence for the rest of us.

If we started in larger states we would never hear from dark horse candidates, whoever had the name recognition and money would roll through those states and the elections would be a foregone conclusion.

Iowa and New Hampshire force candidates to talk about issues, meet people. do town halls, prepare for debates... I think it's great. They take their roles very seriously, especially in Iowa, and I think they do us a service.

And it's not like they actually have a ton of influence in the overall election, they don't have the elecorates to make a huge difference. Most of the time the winners in the states don't win the primaries. However, the process benefits all of us.

The people who hate Iowa and New Hampshire most are the establishment candidates, big money candidates, and people who feel they deserve a quick an early annonting (like Jeb and HIllary)

Which is really the subtext of Tim's OP I think, as a Hillary superfan he wonders, 'why do we have to go through all this?' It's frustrating and concerning to hyper supporters and big backers that someone destined to be president could be waylaid by these small states with their petty provincial concerns (which of course describes nearly all states). Of course that's less likely to unlikely for Hillary now vs a month ago but they are making her work for it.

 

[timschochet]

You couldn't be more wrong Saints. This has nothing to do with Hillary, or with the establishment vs outsiders. I've been making this same complaint for about 20 years. Incidentally I actually believe that Hillary benefits from Iowa being first as a caucus means the better organized candidate often wins.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat it but this is not about smaller states vs larger ones. It's about the same two states every time.

 

[Chadstroma]

You couldn't be more wrong Saints. This has nothing to do with Hillary, or with the establishment vs outsiders. I've been making this same complaint for about 20 years. Incidentally I actually believe that Hillary benefits from Iowa being first as a caucus means the better organized candidate often wins.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat it but this is not about smaller states vs larger ones. It's about the same two states every time.

Not true.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I really like the system. Iowa and New Hampshire take care of the due diligence for the rest of us.

If we started in larger states we would never hear from dark horse candidates, whoever had the name recognition and money would roll through those states and the elections would be a foregone conclusion.

Iowa and New Hampshire force candidates to talk about issues, meet people. do town halls, prepare for debates... I think it's great. They take their roles very seriously, especially in Iowa, and I think they do us a service.

And it's not like they actually have a ton of influence in the overall election, they don't have the elecorates to make a huge difference. Most of the time the winners in the states don't win the primaries. However, the process benefits all of us.

The people who hate Iowa and New Hampshire most are the establishment candidates, big money candidates, and people who feel they deserve a quick an early annonting (like Jeb and HIllary)

Which is really the subtext of Tim's OP I think, as a Hillary superfan he wonders, 'why do we have to go through all this?' It's frustrating and concerning to hyper supporters and big backers that someone destined to be president could be waylaid by these small states with their petty provincial concerns (which of course describes nearly all states). Of course that's less likely to unlikely for Hillary now vs a month ago but they are making her work for it.

You couldn't be more wrong Saints. This has nothing to do with Hillary, or with the establishment vs outsiders. I've been making this same complaint for about 20 years. Incidentally I actually believe that Hillary benefits from Iowa being first as a caucus means the better organized candidate often wins.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat it but this is not about smaller states vs larger ones. It's about the same two states every time.

Uh, what you said and what I said are not mutually exclusive. Hillary is the extremely organized (cough*machine*) candidate in Iowa especially that gives an advantage traditionally, but that doesn't mean that those major leading candidates and their supporters don't consider it a drag that they have to go through the process like they are running for county dog catcher.